MARIO VALEROSO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondent.

R E S O L U T I O N

CALLEJO, SR., J.:

Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari
filed by Mario Valeroso seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision[1]
of the Court of Appeals dated September 7, 2001 in CA-G.R. CR No. 23672 which
affirmed the petitioners conviction for Malicious Mischief.

The undisputed antecedent facts are as follows:

The petitioner was a former barangay captain of Balon Anito,
Balanga, Bataan.On August 21, 1996,
the Philippine National Bank (PNB) hired the petitioner as caretaker of its lot
situated in Porto del Sol Subdivision, Balon Anito, Balanga, Bataan.Consequently, the petitioner put up on the
said lot a sign which reads No Trespassing, PNB Property to ward off
squatters.

Sometime in April 1997, despite the sign, Mrs. Julita Castillo,
believing that the said lot was owned by her grandparents, constructed a nipa
hut thereon.She spent P12,350
for the huts construction.

On June 5, 1997, the petitioner, together with Jorge Valeroso,
Fernando Operario, Peter Morales and Rolando de Guzman, tore down and
demolished Mrs. Castillos hut.She
thus filed with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Bataan a criminal complaint
for malicious mischief against the petitioner and his cohorts:

That on or about 9:30 oclock more or less in the morning of June
5, 1997 at Sitio Porto, Brgy. Balon Anito, Municipality of Mariveles, Province
of Bataan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused with deliberate intent did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously motivated with hatred and confederately conspiring
and mutually helping one another to attain their united purpose, and without
any authority from the Law demolished the house owned by the herein named
offended party Mrs. Julita Castillo, to the Damaged [sic] and Prejudiced [sic]
of the aforementioned offended party in the total amount of twelve thousand
three hundred fifty pesos (P12,350.00) Philippine Currency.

The case was tried in accordance with the Rules on Summary
Procedure.The petitioner and his
co-accused were required to submit their counter-affidavits.During the arraignment, they pleaded not
guilty.After due trial, the MTC
rendered judgment upon the following findings:

Accused Valerozo (sic) admitted in his counter-affidavit and during
his oral testimony that he indeed demolished the structure of complainant
Julita Castillo in his capacity as caretaker of the owner, PNB, Republic Bank,
after he warned her and all illegal occupants to vacate the premises even
posting NO TRESPASSING signs to indicate that the place is privately owned;
he also absolved all his co-defendants from any liability alleging that he
acted alone during the demolition of said structure.By this unequivocal admission made by Valerozo (sic), the
question which arises is whether or not his being designated as caretaker of
the property necessarily clothed him with authority to demolish the structure
of the complainant without further resort to legal niceties such as obtaining a
written order from the Court authorizing such demolition.

The Court is inclined to support the view that Valerozo should not
have taken the law into his own hands to cause the destruction and eventual
demolition of Mrs. Castillos structure even if it could be assumed that it was
constructed without his permission or that of the owner, PNB, Republic Bank, or
that she was merely an intruder, interloper or a squatter on the land.Justifying Valerozos (sic) unilateral
action of demolition will set a bad precedent and may result in chaos and
disorder in society as the owner or anybody perceived to be so authorized by
the owner can act on his own and conduct demolition extrajudicially.This is against the law and cannot be
countenanced.

All the essential elements to establish the crime of Malicious
Mischief has been sufficiently proven against accused Valerozo (sic)
alone.The evidence taken as a whole,
however, does not point with positive certainty towards the guilt of the rest
of the defendants.[3]

The dispositive portion of the MTC decision reads:

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, considering the fact that the guilt of
defendant Mario Valerozo (sic) of the crime of Malicious Mischief has been duly
established beyond reasonable doubt; there being neither mitigating nor
aggravating circumstances in attendance, and pursuant to Article 329, first
paragraph of the Revised Penal Code, he is hereby sentenced to a straight
penalty of three (3) months of arresto mayor, including whatever accessory
penalties which may be applicable and to pay the costs of the proceedings.Accused Jorge Valerozo, Peter Morales (who
died during the proceedings), Rolando De Guzman and Fernando Operario are
hereby ACQUITTED for insufficiency of evidence.

The petitioner appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), of
Balanga, Bataan, Branch 4, which affirmed with modification the decision of the
MTC.The dispositive portion of the RTC
decision states:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision appealed from is
hereby MODIFIED.There being no reason
to deviate from the decision of the Municipal Trial Court Judge with respect to
the criminal liability of the accused the same is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.However, the court finds appellant civilly
liable in the amount of TWO THOUSAND PESOS (P2,000.00) as actual damages.

The petitioner then elevated the case to the Court of Appeals
(CA) which rendered the assailed decision affirming that of the RTC, finding
the petitioner guilty of malicious mischief and holding him criminally and
civilly liable therefor:

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED and the
assailed decision AFFIRMED.

Undaunted, the petitioner now comes to this Court alleging that
the CA erred in declaring him guilty of malicious mischief.

The petitioner admits that he deliberately demolished Mrs.
Castillos nipa hut.He, however,
contends that the third element of the crime of malicious mischief, i.e., that the act of damaging anothers
property be committed merely for the sake of damaging it, is not present in
this case.He maintains that he
demolished Mrs. Castillos nipa hut to safeguard the interest of his employer,
the PNB, and for no other reason.His
motive was lawful and that there was no malice in causing the damage to the
private complainants property.In
other words, he did not act out of hatred, revenge or other evil motive.

Invoking paragraph 5, Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, the
petitioner posits that he acted in the lawful exercise of a right in effecting
the demolition.He thus prays that he
be absolved of any criminal liability therefor.

The petition is bereft of merit.

The elements of the crime of malicious mischief under Article 327
of the Revised Penal Code are:

1.That the offender
deliberately caused damage to the property of another;

2.That such act does not
constitute arson or other crimes involving destruction;

3.That the act of damaging
anothers property be committed merely for the sake of damaging it.[7]

Contrary to the petitioners contention, all the foregoing
elements are present in this case.First, he admits that he deliberately demolished the nipa hut of Mrs.
Castillo.Second, the demolition does
not constitute arson or any other crime involving destruction.Third, as correctly found by the CA:

Petitioner was appointed caretaker of the subject lot on August 21,
1996.Upon the other hand, private
complainant constructed her hut thereon only in April 1997.Such being the case, petitioner was not
justified in summarily and extrajudicially demolishing private complainants
structure.As it is, petitioner
proceeded not so much to safeguard the lot as it is to give vent to his anger
and disgust over Castillos disregard of the no trespassing sign he placed thereon.Indeed, his act of summarily demolishing the house smacks of his
pleasure in causing damage to it (United
States vs. Gerale, 4 Phil. 218).[8]

Art. 11. Justifying
circumstances. The following do not incur any criminal liability:

. . .

5.Any person who acts
in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office.

The requisites of the foregoing justifying circumstance are (1)
that the accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise
of a right; and (2) that the injury caused or the offense committed be the
necessary consequence of the due
performance of duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office.[9]

In this case, as held not only by the MTC but also the RTC and
the CA, the petitioner deliberately demolished the property of Mrs. Castillo
without any lawful authority.Thus,
while the first requisite is present, the second is unavailing.The petitioner was not acting in the
fulfillment of his duty when he took the law into his own hands and summarily
demolished Mrs. Castillos hut.It
bears stressing that the said hut was constructed on the property as early as
April 1997.

In sum, the petitioner has failed to sufficiently show that the
appellate court committed reversible error in the assailed decision.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.The assailed Decision dated September 7,
2001, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 23672 is AFFIRMEDin toto.